-
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 46220 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: February 12, 2019 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED MICHELLE KATHERINE IHM, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, State of Idaho, Latah County. Hon. John R. Stegner, District Judge. Order revoking withheld judgment, judgment of conviction, and order retaining jurisdiction, affirmed. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Michelle Katherine Ihm pled guilty to violation of a no-contact order. Idaho Code § 18- 920. The district court entered an order withholding judgment and placing Ihm on probation for a period of four years. Several months later, Ihm was found to have violated the terms of the probation and the district court sentenced Ihm to a unified term of four years with one year determinate and retained jurisdiction. Ihm appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by revoking her probation and her withheld judgment. Ihm further asserts that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence. 1 It is within the trial court’s discretion to revoke probation if any of the terms and conditions of the probation have been violated. I.C. §§ 19-2603, 20-222; State v. Beckett,
122 Idaho 324, 325,
834 P.2d 326, 327 (Ct. App. 1992); State v. Adams,
115 Idaho 1053, 1054,
772 P.2d 260, 261 (Ct. App. 1989); State v. Hass,
114 Idaho 554, 558,
758 P.2d 713, 717 (Ct. App. 1988). In determining whether to revoke probation a court must examine whether the probation is achieving the goal of rehabilitation and consistent with the protection of society. State v. Upton,
127 Idaho 274, 275,
899 P.2d 984, 985 (Ct. App. 1995);
Beckett, 122 Idaho at 325, 834 P.2d at 327;
Hass, 114 Idaho at 558, 758 P.2d at 717. The court may, after a probation violation has been established, order that the suspended sentence be executed or, in the alternative, the court is authorized under I.C.R. 35 to reduce the sentence.
Beckett, 122 Idaho at 325, 834 P.2d at 327; State v. Marks,
116 Idaho 976, 977,
783 P.2d 315, 316 (Ct. App. 1989). The court may also order a period of retained jurisdiction. I.C. § 19-2601. A decision to revoke probation will be disturbed on appeal only upon a showing that the trial court abused its discretion.
Beckett, 122 Idaho at 325, 834 P.2d at 327. In reviewing the propriety of a probation revocation, the focus of the inquiry is the conduct underlying the trial court’s decision to revoke probation. State v. Morgan,
153 Idaho 618, 621,
288 P.3d 835, 838 (Ct. App. 2012). Thus, this Court will consider the elements of the record before the trial court relevant to the revocation of probation issues which are properly made part of the record on appeal.
Id. Sentencing isa matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez,
121 Idaho 114, 117-18,
822 P.2d 1011, 1014- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez,
106 Idaho 447, 449-51,
680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Toohill,
103 Idaho 565, 568,
650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver,
144 Idaho 722, 726,
170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, the order revoking withheld judgment, judgment of conviction, and order retaining jurisdiction is affirmed. 2
Document Info
Filed Date: 2/12/2019
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 2/12/2019